M-MRCA stakes becomes hotter [Archive]

View Full Version : M-MRCA stakes becomes hotter

d_berwal

April 3rd, 2006, 05:58 AM

Asian Aerospace 2006
FORCE

Aircraft giants fight over a piece of the Indian pie
By Prasun K. Sengupta

From an Indian standpoint, the 13th edition of the Asian Aerospace (AA-2006) exhibition, held in Singapore between February 21 and 26 this year, provided some critical insights into the fierce on-going competition between Boeing, Dassault Aviation, BAE Systems and RAC-MiG to supply close to 200 medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA) to the Indian Air Force (IAF). The exhibition also provided a rare glimpse into the various guided-missile R&D joint ventures that were recently launched between India and Israel.

With Dassault Aviation’s Rafale Mk1 and BAE Systems’ Eurofighter Typhoon now entering the fray along with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab’s JAS-39C Gripen for the IAF’s M-MRCA competition (FORCE February 2006, pages 52-53), Russia’s RAC-MiG has quietly dropped its offer of the so-called MiG-35 derivative of the MiG-29M. Instead, the company is now offering its I-2000 fifth-generation M-MRCA, for which RAC-MiG did significant R & D work throughout the 1990s under its privately-funded Logkiy Frontovi Istrebilte project. In fact, a highly classified briefing on two distinct variants of the I-2000 was given to defence minister Pranab Mukherjee in Moscow last November (FORCE November 2005, pages 8-9) following which he reportedly told Russian officials rather bluntly that the ministry of defence (MoD) would be more inclined towards co-developing the I-2000 with Russia rather than go for the MiG-35. The I-2000 will have a blended fuselage and thick wing centre-section. To be equipped with fly-by-light flight control systems, an all-digital nav-attack system containing French, Indian and Israeli avionics, and powered by NPO Saturn’s twin AL-41FP turbofans with thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles, the tandem-seat I-2000 will be capable of supercruise (sustaining supersonic speeds without engaging the engine’s afterburners) as well as super-manoeuvrability. More than 50 per cent of the I-2000’s airframe will be built with composite materials, and the aircraft will have a gross take-off weight of 15 tonnes, and a weapons payload of five tonnes. Both Rosoboronexport State Corp and RAC-MiG have assured the MoD that first deliveries of the I-2000 would begin within 48 months of contract signature. RAC-MiG and India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) would jointly build up to four flying prototypes and two pre-production flight-worthy variants for the I-2000’s accelerated flight-test-cum-airworthiness certification schedule, which will be completed by 2010.

Substantial work was done during the '90s with this beast....
http://www.sirviper.com/index.php?page=div/Mig_i-2000

HOW THE OFFERINGS STAND NOW

US enters the race with F/A-18 & F- 16
Dassault Aviation’s pulls out Mirage 2000-5 & offers Rafale Mk1
RAC-Mig pulls out Mig-29OVT/ mig-35 & offers I-2000
BAE Systems Eurofighter Typhoon enters race

suryaaa

April 3rd, 2006, 07:12 AM

d_berwal

April 4th, 2006, 03:52 AM

d berwel is this ac of russia suposed to be a part of pak-fa a joint venture b/w ind -russia.if not is there any chance that ind will go for it ,i dont think so because hjt selection itself is an example. if i am the selecetor i will go for this new one . and one more thing will there be tot.

Mikoyan I-2000

The new Russian fighter MiG-I-2000 Development of Russia's LFI (logkiy frontovoi istrebitel) lightweight tactical fighter has been dramatically accelerated after the Russian Air Force decided it's priorities for the next 10 years.

The I-2000 (Istrebitel [fighter] 2000), is due to become operational in 2005 as Russia's basic front-line fighter. It is also likely to become the leading export product of the Russian aircraft industry. Available information on the I-2000 indicates that it will be closely comparable to the US Joint Strike Fighter,operating in both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles.

The aircraft comes from a long line of Mikoyan lightweight fighters, such as the MiG-15 and MiG-21. It is about the same size as the MiG-21 (shorter by 1.3m but wider by 4.5m), but noticeable smaller than its immediate predecessor, the MiG-29. Take-off weight is estimated at around 12 tonnes; maximum take-off weight at about 16 tonnes.

The design requirements for I-2000 call for reduced radar and infrared visibility and very high manoeuvrability, as well as short take-off and landing. The aircraft will have a blended fuselage/centre wing and a thick wing centre-section, with curved leading and trailing edges. The unusual aerodynamic configuration and powerful thrust-vectoring engines should provide excellent agility. Take-off and landing runs are short thanks to a specially designed landing gear that permits approaches at high angles of attack.

According to official sources, single and twin-engined variants of the LFI are under consideration. The graphics show a twin- engined variant with an all-new power plant. No engines of the required thrust currently exist in Russia.

The first design of a very light new-generation fighter was prepared by Mikoyan in the early 1980s, when design work also began on the heavy fighter, the MFI (sometimes known as the 1-42). The result was 'Product 33' powered by a single RD-33 engine from the MiG-29. It was of conventional design, appearing similar to the US Lockheed Martin F-16.

Although work on Product 33 became well advanced, it was not ordered due to the air force's reorientation towards multi-role aircraft - the lightweight Product 33 could be used for close air combat only. The basic Product 33 design is being offered by Mikoyan to China as the FC-1 fighter.

The only competition within Russia for the I-2000 is the S-54, developed by Sukhoi from an advanced trainer design of the early 1990s.

The S-54 is essentially a smaller, single-engined Su-35, with a more conventional layout than the I-2000. The status of the S-54 is unknown, but is thought to be in the initial stages of development. Having no real Russian Air Force support, the S-54 is intended for export as a complement to the heavy Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft sold to China and India.

It has been decided that the heavy fifth-generation MFI will not enter serial production. It will, however, begin flight tests this August as a technology demonstrator. Mikhail Korzhuyev, recently appointed Mikoyan's general director, said that flights of the MFI are now a matter of honour for the company.

The aircraft has been ready for flight tests for about five years, but grounded for lack of cash. An extensive upgrade programme for the MiG-29 is to continue in parallel with development work on the I-2000."

Source: Jane's Defence Weekly, vol.29

LFI

The design features are still unclear as the assembly of the prototype has not commenced yet. The code name of the latest Mikhoyan Gurevich fighter is LFI. The aim of this project is to make a lightweight multi role stealth fighter. This information comes with the official announcement of the Russian Airforce of its priority to build a lightweight multi-role fighter. This is being done to oppose the heavy weight fighters like the MiG-MFI and the S-37. The possible competitor of the MiG-LFI project of the S-54 which is being developed by the Sukhoi OKB.

Overview of the MiG-LFI Project

According to the Jane's defense weekly. The development of the Logkiy Frontovi Istrebilte project was aimed at producing a fighter which is capable of satisfying the requirements of the Russian Airforce for the next 10-15 years. The project is revealed to the Jane's defense weekly as I-2000 which means Istrebitel 2000 (fighter 2000). The project is believed to enter service by 2005 as the frontline strike fighter for the soviet air force. This project is also likely to be a major component of Russia's arms export. The revealed information about the I-2000 suggests that it is likely to be an archrival of the JSF of the US. The I-2000 is also revealed to be capable of both air-to-air as well as air-to-surface operations.

This project is a part of a long line of lightweight fighter projects by the MiG aircraft industry. The other lightweight projects include the MiG-21 and the MiG-15. The I-2000 is believed to be shorter than the MiG-21 by up to 1.3 m but is broader than it by about 4.5 m. the I-2000 is considerably smaller than its predecessor the MiG-29.

Design

The I-2000 is designed to have a reduced IR and Radar signature. This gives the aircraft the stealth capabilities. The I-2000 is also believed to be very light ,manoeuverable and with short take off and landing capabilities. The I-2000 has a blended fuselage and a thick wing center-section. The aerodynamic configuration of the I-2000 is considered to be very unusual and is equipped with powerful thrust vectoring system thus providing the aircraft with unimaginable agility. The landing gear of the I-2000 is specially designed so as to allow landing approaches at high angle of attacks.

The pilot and the and the WSO (Weapon Systems Operator) share the cockpit in tandem. The presence of a WSO improves the effectivity of the MiG-31 as the WSO is entirely dedicated to radar operations and weapons deployment. This decreases the workload of the pilot and increases efficiency.

Engine

The engine required for the I-2000 are currently not available in Russia. This means that the Russian scientists are working on a revolutionary new engine, which can be compared to that of the one used in the F-22 or the JSF. There are reports from official sources that the LFI project includes a single and a twin engine version.

The LFI is expected to be sold to countries which are heavily dependant on Russia for arms. This include India and China. India had recently bought a version of the Su-30 which is known as the Su-30MKI which was developed specifically for the requirements of the Indian Air Force(IAF). This plane is compared to the Su-37 is many respects and is better than the other versions of the Su-30. The Indian has signed a deal with the Russians to help them in the complete development of the S-37 which also means that the MiG-LFI projects will also be entertained.

MIG LFI Vs SUKOI MFI

As per my research i believe Mig & Sukoi both have shown there LFI & MFI concepts for Indias 5th Gen Fighter Requirement.

LIF also meets the M-MRCA specifications

The LFI version offered to INDIA is VITYAZ-2000 (futher development to basic LFI design)

Vityaz 2000 - Russian JSF?

By Andrei Yurgenson [27 May 2001] "A new generation of aircraft in any country has always meant money, big money. The increased cost for air vehicles development and production made it the deciding factor. Both the client and contractor have now not only to solve technical problems but also to find new ways to organize and finance development, production, procurement and operation of new aerial vehicles. The USA, one of the wealthiest nations, is not an exception, with the JSF program featuring fund raising problems. The clients and developing companies in the aviation powers had tried to meet requirements of their Air Forces. The aircraft manufacturers had not seen any difference between needs of domestic and foreign customers and the same high performance of the products had been provided for the both markets. The aviation market huge, the prices low, such an importing policy had been seen as a right thing. Now the things have changed: the international aviation market has narrowed in the recent decade and it will keep on going this way next 10-15 years. Thus, a tactical aviation combat aircraft has primarily to be a product meeting needs and financial capabilities of various countries, a foreign-markets-oriented product. On the other hand, potential customers are interested in a multipurpose combat aircraft, the reasons being the same. The analysis of the tactical aviation aircraft shows that about 20 thousand of them have take-off weights between 10 and 20 tons, mass-produced being the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, A-4, F-16, Mirage III, Mirage F.1, Mirage 2000, J35 Draken, J37 Viggen, J39 Gripen, J-6, J-7. According to the life time and actual time in service, approximately 7,400 vehicles of the type are estimated to be replaced by 2005, about 35% of the fleet in operation. In economics terms, that means that aircraft of this take-off weight may be of great demand in the very near future. So, the new tactical combat aircraft will be of greater flight performance then the 4th generation fighters. It is going to have a multifunction radar with the multichannel tracking and engagement options for air and ground targets as well as to use high-precision weapons killing surface targets. The new system has to be simple in operation, easily put into mass production and easy for personnel training. To be successfully promoted, the new aircraft has to be able to meet the 'efficiency-cost' competition from the existing F-16, Rafale, Mirage-2000, EF2000 and developing JSF. The development of new Russian combat aircraft has always been associated not only with the Air Force demands but also with scientific and technical resources needed to make a more sophisticated aerial vehicle. "The 5th-generation fighter, including all necessary materials, technologies, avionics and armament systems can be developed and produced now only in Russia and the USA", the leading Russian experts say. The United States proved it by the F-22 project, while Russia has already fulfilled a number of programs that can form a science and technical basis for a 5th-generation combat aircraft. The aviation industry has been carrying out researches to assimilate new for Russia aerodynamic configurations as in the 'canard' MiG 1.44 project and Sukhoi Su-47 (S-37) "Berkut" (the Russian for 'golden eagle ') of the triplane forward-swept configuration, unusual even for international practice. The two aircraft are considered as the next-generation technology demonstrators. The designers tried to provide the systems with such 5th-generation characteristics as a decreased radar signature, supersonic cruise flight in the no-afterburner mode, high maneuverability within a wide speed range. In 1994-2000 the OKB 'Mukhamedov' design bureau carried out a separate research to find out what a 5th-generation combat aircraft should look like and what basic properties such an aircraft is going to have. The project has lead to the "Vityaz-2000"? multifunction combat system. The aircraft can be of interest for domestic, CIS and foreign markets, provided the international partnership and investment. Unlike the US JSF, Vityaz is aimed at markets in the CIS, Central Asia, Far East and Asia-Pacific region. Vityaz-2000 features a fundamentally new aerodynamic configuration, dubbed "integral", and allowing stable and controlled flights at extremely big angles of attack. Bureau President Fatidin Mukhamedov, D.Sc., said the company had been developing the "integral" configuration since 1985. Multiple aerodynamic tests of various versions testify to the fact that the configuration can be used for aircraft of various types. The company's first project was the "Evrasia-700" super capacity aircraft, unveiled in Le Bourget in 1993. In 1994, the "integral" configuration was granted the first patent. A year later, in Dubai, the TOO 'Evrasia' company (now OKB 'Mukhamedov') introduced a long-term "integral" configuration combat aircraft project. The most important thing about the aircraft is that the 'integral' configuration provides high aerodynamic performance at low as well as high angles of attack due to the aircraft optimal planform, and specially developed flight structure with reciprocal-type components: wing panels, 'disk' centerwing section, wing extensions and their fuselage parts. The wing extensions and disk turbulent flow systems provide smooth, without rapid changes, association of the lift and longitudinal coefficients according to the angle of attack to compensate for wing panel stalling. The more the angle of attack, the more the center-wing section works, which, supported by swivel leading edge flaps, increases the angle of attack and smoothes the decreasing of the lift coefficient up to 50-60 degrees. The Vityaz aerodynamic configuration differs from the above ones by powerful lift force direct control elements - swivel wing panels, allowing separation of the trajectory and angular aircraft movements, that is to perform a pitching turn with no change of the lift force, improving the aircraft performance in combat. US developing teams tried to translate the idea into reality in the mid-70s in the AFTI project. The president of OKB "Mukhamedov" believes that 'from the a variety of aircraft characteristics, a developer first of all has to pick out critical ones, what actually an aircraft is made for, then necessary characteristics not interfering with the "critical" section, and auxiliary characteristics aimed only at improving the critical ones'. The critical characteristics of the Vityaz project are high maneuverability at supersonic speeds with the energy level maintained stable, high maneuverability at speeds characteristic of a short-time close combat, supermaneuverability including a controlled flight at a 60њ angle of attack and maneuvers at a more than 90њ angle of attack, take-off and landing characteristics enabling the aircraft to be based near the combat zone. The 'necessary characteristics' section incorporates decreased aircraft radar signature in the thermal and radar ranges, high combat and aircraft survivability. Vityaz auxiliary property is the lift force direct control system allowing engagement of ground targets at low altitudes and high speeds, as well as increasing the aircraft supermaneuverability and improving the takeoff-landing performance. The swivel wing panels with leading-edge flaps allows operation in the normal flow mode within the required fuselage orientation range. This provides a higher level of controllability in the supermaneuverability modes, elimination of an involuntary spin and entering the supermaneuverability mode at higher speeds. The wing panels at negative local angles temporally reduce the maximum wing load capacity and existing loads almost two-fold. Combined with an increased controllability, this gives the aircraft a possibility to maneuver not exceeding the permissible loads. The aircraft has a full-authority digital automatic control system with a thrust controlled engine nozzle included in the longitudinal and flight control systems. The above aerodynamic characteristics will ensure the aircraft's superiority in a short-time close combat, other things being equal. When backing up ground forces, the aircraft survivability is ensured by armour protection of the critical aircraft units (which is quite a problem for the aircraft type in question) as well as by the fact, that, provided low altitudes (less then 300m) and high speeds (more then 850 km/h), such an air target is rather hard to be engaged by enemy's ground AD forces. On the other hand, in such a flight mode the aircraft cannot effectively engage ground targets without special techniques and technologies. In the Vityaz-2000 project, the problem is solved though separation of the trajectory and angular aircraft directions by the means of the swivel wing panels. It enables Vityaz to kill surface targets in the low-altitude and low-speed mode. At an altitude of 300 m (the attack altitude is usually not less then 100m) and speed of 850 km/h, provided the detection range is 3 km, a conventional versions have no chance of effectively engaging ground targets. In that case, the engage time is less then one second with the minimum range of 1.5 km, while Vityaz-2000 parameters are 5 seconds and 600 m with the aircraft attacking from a more convenient angle. The effective use an aircraft is very much subject to the takeoff and landing performance. The Vityaz-2000 project incorporates a number of technologies to reduce the landing distance and improve the takeoff performance. Compared with the drag parachute technology, which requires all in all two seconds for the parachute to deploy and billow, the Vityaz breaking system is faster, reaching the level of the takeoff run load factor. Mutually enhancing each other, they make the landing distance equal to that of the take-off, reducing the rollout to the minimum. OKB Mukhamedov has patented a number of Vityaz-2000 takeoff and landing technologies. Another important feature of the 5th generation combat aircraft is the considerably reduced radar and infrared signature. The characteristic is vital for the aircraft combat effectiveness in a long-distance combat, undercover missions and engagement of ground targets, especially while neutralizing enemy radars. However, the OKB Mukhamedov experts are convinced the desire to by all means reduce the scattering cross-section will lead to a F-117-like aircraft, when it cannot be detected by an individual SHF radar, but on the other hand not able to accomplish combat tasks due to the aerodynamics, disfigured by stealth demands. That is why the Vityaz project has all reduced scattering cross-section technologies, including weapons systems located in the inner fuselage sections, except for technologies degrading the aerodynamic and flight characteristics. So, predictably the technologies of the Vityaz-2000 project can lead to a new-generation combat aircraft. OKB President Fatidin Mukhamedov emphasized, that "all nations across the world had been focused on the quality, not the quantity in upgrading the armed forces. Vityaz-2000 is sure far ahead of the competition according to the combat effectiveness parameters due to its aerodynamics, other things being equal."

/Source: translated by Roy Cochrun, Air Fleet magazine, by Andrei Yurgenson, posted on rec.aviation.military by 'Ivan the Bear' on 5-27-01/

gf0012-aust

April 4th, 2006, 04:07 AM

Mikoyan I-2000

Source: Jane's Defence Weekly, vol.29

what date is this volume?

I have Janes All the Worlds Aircraft for 2004 on my desk and it stipulates that the dates are blown out and unlikely to see a test platform until 2010-2012.

There is a funding issue as well which could extend that date even further

d_berwal

April 4th, 2006, 04:34 AM

Russia's Fighter 2000 chases its JSF rival

"Development of Russia's LFI (logkiy frontovoi istrebitel) lightweight tactical fighter has been dramatically accelerated after the Russian Air Force decided its priorities for the next 10 years. Revealed here exclusively as the I-2000 (Istrebitel {fighter} 2000) project, the aircraft is due to become operational in 2005 as Russia's basic front-line fighter. It is also likely to become the leading export product of the Russian aircraft industry. Available information on the I-2000 indicates that it will be closely comparable to the US Joint Strike Fighter, operating in both the air-to-air and air-to-surface roles.

The aircraft comes from a long line of Mikoyan lightweight fighters, such as the MiG-15 and MiG-21. It is about the same size as the MiG-21 (shorter by 1.3m but wider by 4.5m), but noticeably smaller than its immediate predecessor, the MiG-29. Take-off weight is estimated at around 12 tonnes; maximum take-off weight at about 16 tonnes.

The design requirements for I-2000 call for reduced radar and infrared visibility and very high manoeuvrability, as well as short take-off and landing. The aircraft will have a blended fuselage/centre wing and a thick wing centre-section, with curved leading and trailing edges. The unusual aerodynamic configuration and powerful thrust-vectoring engines should provide excellent agility. Take-off and landing runs are short thanks to a specially designed landing gear that permits approaches at high angles of attack.

According to official sources, single and twin-engined variants of the LFI are under consideration. The graphics show a twin-engined variant with an all-new power plant. No engines of the required thrust currently exist in Russia.

The first design of a very light new-generation fighter was prepared by Mikoyan in the early 1980s, when design work also began on the heavy fighter, the MFI (sometimes known as the 1-42). The result was 'Product 33' powered by a single RD-33 engine from the MiG-29. It was of conventional design, appearing similar to the US Lockheed Martin F-16.

Although work on Product 33 became well advanced, it was not ordered due to the air force's reorientation towards multi-role aircraft - the lightweight Product 33 could be used for close air combat only. The basic Product 33 design is being offered by Mikoyan to China as the FC-1 fighter.

The only competition within Russia for the I-2000 is the S-54, developed by Sukhoi from an advanced trainer design of the early 1990s.

The S-54 is essentially a smaller, single-engined Su-35, with a more conventional layout than the I-2000. The status of the S-54 is unknown, but is thought to be in the initial stages of development. Having no real Russian Air Force support, the S-54 is intended for export as a complement to the heavy Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft sold to China and India.

It has been decided that the heavy fifth-generation MFI will not enter serial production. It will, however, begin flight tests this August as a technology demonstrator. Mikhail Korzhuyev, recently appointed Mikoyan's general director, said that flights of the MFI are now a matter of honour for the company.

The aircraft has been ready for flight tests for about five years, but grounded for lack of cash. An extensive upgrade programme for the MiG-29 is to continue in parallel with development work on the I-2000."

(source: Jane's Defense Weekly, 04-15-98, 1998; Issue: PSA-2075; HEADLINES Section)

Co-operation the key for Russia's JSF equivalent

"Moscow has initiated its long-awaited programme to develop a rival to the USA's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with preliminary submissions from three design bureaux due for delivery to the Russian Air Force during September or October. The service's 30th Scientific-Research Institute late last year finalised technical requirements for the new-generation LFS lightweight fighter. These are reported to include: the ability to sustain supersonic cruise; the internal carriage of basic weapons; and the provision of a short take-off and (potentially vertical) landing capability.

In a departure from previous Russian programmes, the three competing design teams - Mikoyan, Sukhoi and Yakovlev - will develop the LFS as a joint project.

The two unsuccessful bureaux will act as subcontractors in charge of individual components of the project following the air force's platform selection. Yakovlev is, for example, expected to manage any vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aspect of the programme, as the sole designer of Russian VTOL aircraft, such as the Yak-38 (NATO codename: 'Forger') and Yak-141 ('Freestyle'). For the first time, the emphasis is expected to focus on reducing platform and operating costs, and on promoting systems commonality with the MFI.

Work on the earlier air-to-air combat LFI took place from the mid-1980s until 1988, when the Mikoyan and Sukhoi bureaus shifted attention towards developing their Project 1-42 (MFI) and S-32 heavy fighters, designed to match the USA's F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter. However, conceptual work on the air-to-air and air-to-surface-capable LFS resumed in about 1994, with the MFI now not expected to enter service until beyond 2010.

Mikoyan has analysed both single- and twin-engined variants of the LFS and recently accepted a design powered by two 80-kN engines, with Russian RD-33/RD-133s and alternative foreign engines also considered for export. This will now be revised since the air force competition stipulates a single-engined platform configured with the Lyulka-Saturn AL-41F turbofan, in common with the MFI and the Sukhoi Su-27IB strike aircraft. The bureau's MiG-35 (MiG-29M) design now appears less likely to be developed, as the air force seemingly moves away from selecting a single fighter-type in between the LFS and MFI.

Among the LFS variants developed by Sukhoi is the S-54, displayed most recently with a 'tandem tri-plane' configuration (featuring canard, wing and tail-plane control surfaces) and one AL-41F engine with a 3-D thrust-vectoring nozzle."

(source: Jane's Defense Weekly, 04-28-99, Vol. 031, Issue: 017; EUROPE Section)

Clearing skies

"After several years of disruption, the Mikoyan design bureau, officially known as ANPK (Aviatsionnyi Nauchno-Promyshlennyi Komplex) MiG, is heading for clearer skies. The company structure is gradually being reorganised and work on several new programmes is under way, despite the severe financial troubles of the MAPO production plant, where a group of employees has been on compulsory leave since 1 April.

The past decade has seen many organisational and personnel changes. In the early 1990s, the financial situation at ANPK MiG was so bad that, in May 1995, it had to merge with the MAPO production plant, the traditional manufacturer of MiG aircraft such as the MiG-29 from 1982 onwards. At the time, MAPO had substantial resources. This alliance, which restricted ANPKMiG's independence, was seen as the only way to maintain employment levels at the design bureau and safeguard the company's future. Even so, many employees left the company and in the middle of last year, ANPKMiG shifted to a three-day working week.

The management of the merged company, called MAPO MiG, decided to bring in other production plants to focus financial and technological resources for the joint production and sale of a number of different Russian aircraft. This led to the creation of the Military Industrial Group MAPO (MIG MAPO) in the first half of 1996.

MIG MAPO is a state-owned enterprise that, besides MAPO MiG, comprises 11 other companies, including the Kamov helicopter design bureau, the Klimov engine design bureau, the Chernyshev engine production factory, a radar production factory in Ryazan and others.

MAPO MiG, however, opposed the rationalisation. Vladimir Kuzmin, the general manager of MAPO MiG, appealed to the Russian courts against the presidential decree which established MIG MAPO. The point at issue was the company's loss of legal identity following its subordination to MIG MAPO, resulting in MAPO MiG not being allowed to sell its own MiG-29 aircraft independently. The courts endorsed the legality of MIG MAPO's formation.

Then money stopped channelling down to MAPO MiG because, as MAPO MiG employees saw it, it was caught in the net somewhere in the complex MIG MAPO administration. MIG MAPO told MAPO MiG's suppliers that all future business should be conducted via MIG and warned them against any direct contact with MAPO MiG.

Consequently, groups polarised around MIG MAPO president Alexander Bezrukov and MAPO MiG general manager Vladimir Kuzmin. The latter was also the MIG MAPO managers' council president. When the men clashed openly, the parties sought the support of the presidential office and of government.

On 9 June last year, Russian President Boris Yeltsin elected to solve the problem within the MIG MAPO management by dismissing both managers and appointing a new head. At the same time, on 4 July, the legal character of MAPO MiG was restored in line with Kuzmin's original demands. Now, Kuzmin has been restored as first chairman of MIG MAPO and director general of MAPO MiG.

Further organisational changes inside MIG MAPO are being considered. Last June, a decision was taken to merge with the Myasishchev design bureau, a move that will probably result in MIG MAPO eventually becoming MIG MAPO-M (there is no formal approval of this structure yet). The next logical move, according to analysts, would be to join with the Sokol factory at Nizhnyi Novgorod, which builds the MiG-29UB, the MiG-31 and civil Myasishchev M-101T.

The situation at the Kamov helicopter design bureau is not much clearer. It has been wanting to quit the MIG MAPO corporation for some time, but another course of action is more probable: Kamov will stay within MIG MAPO, but join with the Progress factory at Arsenyev, manufacturer of the Ka-50 attack helicopter. Kamov's departure from MIG MAPO would raise the prospect of a worse fate - a compulsory fusion with the Mil helicopter company, its closest rival. In reality, this would mean the absorption of Kamov by Mil.

The probable outcome of all the changes still to take place is the exclusion from the combine of engines and avionics manufacturers, leaving only the aircraft design bureaus and aircraft production plants. A consequence of this is that the design bureaus under MIG MAPO-M, including ANPK MiG, will gain more independence and access to further financial resources.

Personnel changes are taking place not only at the level of MIG MAPO but also within ANPK MiG. ANPKMiG's general designer, Rostislav Apollosovich Belyakov, 79, who has wielded enormous influence over the Russian aircraft industry for decades, has been pensioned off with the title of advisor to the general director.

Belyakov has proven a hard act to follow. There is no general designer in ANPKMiG's new organisational structure. Since September, the design bureau has been led by general director Mikhail Korzhuyev, previously ANPKMiG's deputy general director and head of the independent Russian Avionics design bureau. This bureau designed, among other things, the new cockpit for the MiG-29 and the equipment of the Russian version of the MiG-AT. It also adapted the An-30 photographic verification aircraft to the Open Skies configuration.

Korzhuyev presides over five chief designers who co-ordinate the work of the various aircraft and helicopter branches. As well as these branches, there is an experimental design office, an experimental production facility and a flight-test facility.

The pride of ANPKMiG's current programmes is the MFI (mnogofunktsionalnyi istrebitel, or Multi-role Fighter Interceptor). The MFI has been in development since the late 1980s as Russia's answer to the US Air Force's F-22."To fly MFI is a point of honour for the company", Korzhuyev said recently, even though there is no funding from the Russian Air Force.

Since an aircraft of this class has little prospect of being exported without a domestic order, ANPKMiG decided not to invest its own money in the programme. Although the aircraft has been ready for flight trials since 1994, for the same reason it has not been in a rush to test-fly the aircraft. Circumstances changed, however, after the first flight last September of its Sukhoi competitor, the S-37. Although the experimental S-37 is not a true counterpart to the MFI, Sukhoi stole a march in the continuing propaganda war between the rival concerns.

Shortly afterwards, Korzhuyev announced that the first flight of the MFI heavy `fifth-generation' fighter would take place this August. MFI flight tests will be carried out mainly to accumulate flight-test data and to validate technology in two other ANPK MiG programmes under way.

The first of these is a future lightweight fighter, the I-2000 (or LFI) programme, which has recently been accelerated to reach initial operational capability with the Russian Air Force in about 2005 (Jane's Defence Weekly 15 April). The I-2000 is billed as a close counterpart to the US Joint Strike Fighter and will be a basic lightweight air-combat and ground-attack fighter for the Russian Air Force as well as for export. The aircraft will have a low radar and infrared signature, as well as high manoeuvrability and short take-off and landing characteristics.

The most pressing need in the immediate future is to modernise the current MiG-29 fighter, for the Russian Air Force and for foreign users. This upgrade programme is popularly dubbed the MiG-29SMT and Product 9-17 within the design bureau. The programme provides for new avionics and radar (of a new or modernised type), the installation of air-to-surface armament and new air-to-air missiles, as well as a reduction in the aircraft's radar signature thanks to radar-dissipating coatings.

Experimental aircraft within the MiG-29SMT programme are undergoing tests to validate individual design solutions, including the aircraft with new avionics that flew for the first time on 29 November last year, as well as the MiG-29SM with TV-guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles (ASMs). The first flight of the aircraft incorporating all the various modifications is set for mid-year.

The Russian Air Force considers the MiG-29 upgrade programme a priority and the modernisation will cover all Russian MiG-29s. The date and scope of the modernisation are unknown, but it will probably be split into several stages. The essential component of the upgrade is the provision of ASMs to increase the combat potential of Russian Air Force strike capabilities. Most probably, the Su-27 will remain the basic air-superiority fighter in Russia, while the principal tasks of the upgraded MiG-29 (and later the new I-2000) will shift from air-to-air missions into the ground-attack role, a niche which has been left vacant since the the MiG-27 and Su-17 attack aircraft were retired at the beginning of the 1990s.

Another of the most promising and profitable of ANPKMiG's programmes is the MiG-AT advanced jet trainer developed in co-operation with various French companies. Type 821 is an export version with French engines and avionics, while Type 823 for the Russian Air Force will use domestically produced avionics and, later, engines. The single-seat MiG-AC combat version will feature the Mosquito-1 lightweight radar and a range of guided weapons.

The most recent revelation at ANPK MiG is the declaration by its deputy general director, Anatoliy Belosvet, about work that has been continuing since early last year on a commercial space launch system using the MiG-31 interceptor. The system will utilise experience gained from experiments with the anti-satellite MiG-31D (Product 07) aircraft in 1986. That programme was abandoned after two prototypes were built.

The MiG-31 is a heavy long-range interceptor, an aircraft type traditionally required by Russia for its vast northern territories, most of which is not covered by ground radar and surface-to-air missile sites. Work on an improved version of the MiG-31, the MiG-31M, has been halted for lack of money. The same fate befell the Type 701 interceptor (or MDP, mnogofunktsionalnyi dalnyi perekhvatchik, multifunction long-range interceptor) designed in the 1980s. The 701 was to be much larger than the MiG-31 (a length of 30m compared to 22.7m for the MiG-31). Its range was to be 7,000km flying at a cruising speed 2,500km/h, or 11,000km at subsonic speed. Work on the 701 project is continued at the paper stage only. It is likely that the MiG-31 will be replaced by a suitably adapted version of a standard air-superiority fighter (such as the Su-30, a modified version of the Su-27), rather than by a specially designed interceptor.

ANPKMiG is also working on a MiG-31 interceptor upgrade, called the MiG-31F. This gives the aircraft a multirole capability. A wide range of ASMs will be added, including the Kh-31 anti-radar and Kh-59M TV-guided weapons. New AAMs incorporated from the MiG-31M programme include the medium-range R-77 `Adder' as well as long- and ultra-long range types. The Zaslon radar will be upgraded using technology from the improved Zaslon-M programme with better multi-target engagement, the capability to detect Mach 6 (M6.0) targets, better resolution, as well as real-beam and synthetic-aperture ground-mapping modes. Although planned for several years, this modernisation will make more sense when the Russian Air Force and Air Defence Troops merge into one, a move planned to take place this year (at present, no air-to-ground tasks are provided by Air Defence Troops operating MiG-31s).

The cruising speed is to be 4,250km/h (M4.0) at an altitude of 82,020ft to 88,582ft (25km to 27km). Variable geometry wings are necessary for operation from existing airfields. The design take-off weight is about 80 tonnes, half of which is fuel weight. Two variants of the 301 are planned, a reconnaissance aircraft with electronic-intelligence and sideways-looking airborne radar equipment and a bomber with stand-off missiles carried in an internal weapons bay.

Analysts have predicted that in the long term, ANPKMiG's business prospects are better than those of Sukhoi. The ANPKMiG programmes are closer to market needs, particularly the MiG-29 upgrade programme, the development of its successor, the I-2000, and the MiG-AT trainer. Many believe Sukhoi's main weakness is its own internal politics.

Recently, a group of designers who could not or would not co-operate with bureau chief Mikhail Simonov left the design bureau. This happened before in the early 1980s when many left for ANPKMiG. The air forces have accused Simonov of delaying state orders to pursue his own initiatives instead, allocating resources to programmes that have little potential for success such as the S-37 forward-swept wing fighter."

(source: Jane's Defense Weekly, 04-29-98, 1998; Issue: PSA-2084; Wednesday, April 29, 1998; BRIEFING Section)

Conclusion

LFI is a logical successor to Mig 29
MFI( Pak-FA) is a logical sucessor to Su 27 series

d_berwal

April 4th, 2006, 04:41 AM

what date is this volume?

I have Janes All the Worlds Aircraft for 2004 on my desk and it stipulates that the dates are blown out and unlikely to see a test platform until 2010-2012.

There is a funding issue as well which could extend that date even further

FUNDING ISSUE " If India chosses it for M-MRCA< funding will not be a problem.

Dates actully fit the Indian M-MRCA requirement

My opinion

gf0012-aust

April 4th, 2006, 05:06 AM

FUNDING ISSUE " If India chosses it for M-MRCA< funding will not be a problem.

Dates actully fit the Indian M-MRCA requirement

My opinion

one of the major issues is that even the articles you cite are all circa 1998-1999. In light of the 2004-2005 Janes reports (as welll as Av Int'l etc) then there are real questions of it meeting any schedules.

Money per se, is not the only delimiter. Fundamentally, in mil aviation terms, any technical commentary (let alone project commentary) that is 7-8 years old is redundant.

One only has to look at Russian announcements over the last 3 years to see that even the short project announcements aren't being achieved.

On a side note re posting articles:

please remember that we stipulate that cut and pasted articles require commentary from the poster
please try and break up your cut and pastes as once they hit more than 1.5 screens, then they lose their impact. Its better for everyone to see them reduced even if it means breaking them up separately.thx

d_berwal

April 4th, 2006, 06:17 AM

one of the major issues is that even the articles you cite are all circa 1998-1999. In light of the 2004-2005 Janes reports (as welll as Av Int'l etc) then there are real questions of it meeting any schedules.

Money per se, is not the only delimiter. Fundamentally, in mil aviation terms, any technical commentary (let alone project commentary) that is 7-8 years old is redundant.

One only has to look at Russian announcements over the last 3 years to see that even the short project announcements aren't being achieved.

Every project has trouble meeting schedules.

I believe even F-22 is behing the original schedule.

The new Saeqeh-80 Iranian (trainer) plane is a scaled down version of I-2000.
Russia and Iran were supposed to work on I-2000 together until Russia pulled out because of outside pressure.

VITYAZ - 2000 is a further development to I-2000 and Russians want to use the work done on I-2000, M-MRCA req gives them an opportunity to utilise the work already done on I-2000.

I guess the race for M-MRCA is really hotting up and whoever gets the bulk of M-MRCA tender will let him survive in the business. MIG is really pulling out everything it has to offer in terms of Tec or designs to win the TENDER, this shows HOW IMP IT IS FOR MIG TO WIN THE ORDER FROM INDIA>

tphuang

April 4th, 2006, 11:19 AM

I just don't see how you can buy a blueprint, when other really capable and truly multirole fighters are available.

If the Russians claim that they can get prototypes out by 2010, they probably can, but the quality will be subpar (as seen by other deals where they were on a short schedule). I'm guessing 2015 would be when the first operating I-2000 might enter the service if IAF does choose this.

d_berwal

May 1st, 2006, 03:42 AM

In early September 1997, Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev revealed that Russia simultaneously develops six new generation fighter aircraft. This means that MAPO MIG and ANTK Sukhoi proceed with more development programmes than Europe (Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen) and US (F-22 and JSF) together. Although very same revelation followed by a statement that Russian military-industrial complex was working on technologies that were 10 to 15 per cent ahead of the rest of the world, there is a very little indication that MoD actually provides any significant funding for any of these fighter projects. Most of the work financed by Sukhoi and Mikoyan themselves. Two aircraft has been flown (one of which was revealed to public), another underwent high speed taxi trials, remaining two out of three are expected to made their maiden flight within a year. It is a matter of classification, but strictly speaking new fighters broadly fit four-and-a-half (4++) to five-and-a-half generation range.

ANTK Sukhoi

Su-37
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su37.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/

S-37/ Su 47 (aka S-32)
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/s37.htm
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

S-55
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/six5th_6.html

MAPO MIG

MiG-35 (aka MiG-29M2)

Article 1.42
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html

LFI
http://www.sirviper.com/index.php?page=div/Mig_i-2000

aaaditya

May 6th, 2006, 02:16 PM

well guys since this is the mmrca thread ,i request the web to make an exception and allow these images to remain.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8905/typhoon19bd.jpg

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3638/ef200081iy.jpg

the ef2000's looking sophisticated as usual.

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7316/typhoon28gq.jpg

rafale, simply out of this world.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3919/rafalea17dj.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4296/r151ol.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2150/rafalef8hy.jpg

by the way can someone tell me what are those small canard like structures on the nose of the aircraft,the flat plate like structures on both the air intakes and the ball and nozzle like structure on the left air intake and what their functions.

grippen means buisness.

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1794/gripen018ml.jpg

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/5901/grippen2dv.jpg

Scorpion82

May 6th, 2006, 03:29 PM

by the way can someone tell me what are those small canard like structures on the nose of the aircraft,the flat plate like structures on both the air intakes and the ball and nozzle like structure on the left air intake and what their functions.

These "canard like structures" are AoA measurers or however you want to call it.
The small modules on the airlift intakes include components of the electronic warefare system Spectra. Spectra includes RWR/ESM, ECM, MAW and LWR as well as chaff/flare dispensers.

Scorpion82

May 6th, 2006, 03:36 PM

So and here are my thoughts about russians 5th generation fighters and the related articles above.

The first important thing to note is that these articles are years old and many things like schedules can't be met. The Su-47 (S-37) and the MiG MFI are experimental aircraft as the RuAF didn't want one of the two.

S-54 and 55 are dead ducks in my opinion. There is no indications that these two projects will be realized.

The main russian 5th generation fighter under developement is the Sukhoi T-50 within the PAK-FA which might enter production around 2012-2015. How good this aircraft will be? No idea there're simply not enough informations available. The only thing I know is that the T-50 will be a larger fighter, smaller than the current Flanker series, but probably larger than the MiG-29 or at least equally large. The aircraft will be powered by 2 AL-41F turbofans and will have stealth capabilities.

The I-2000 is exspected for export only to my understanding. But introduction into russian service would make sence. But is Russia able to afford two new generation types? Initially the T-50 will use some of the avionics which are under developement for the new Su-35 (T-10BM/Su-27SM2).

aaaditya

May 6th, 2006, 07:11 PM

These "canard like structures" are AoA measurers or however you want to call it.
The small modules on the airlift intakes include components of the electronic warefare system Spectra. Spectra includes RWR/ESM, ECM, MAW and LWR as well as chaff/flare dispensers.

thanks very much for the information,however doesnt,the rafale have the spectra on the wingtips?

i dont see,the current posistioning of spectra,giving the aircraft all aspect jamming capability.

suryaaa

May 6th, 2006, 11:20 PM

aaaditya

May 7th, 2006, 03:08 AM

adityaaaa thanks for those pictures ,they are cool .
your rafale pic s gives them mean look .

is their any chance that india will get this machine.

i heard that france is intrested in giving india 40 rafales in a seperate deal.

is their any improvement on it.

thanks ,but they are not mine,but downloaded from the web.

i would give a better chance for the rafale and the mig35 going by the past history,which the super hornet being the dark horse.

i will try to post their cockpits soon.

gf0012-aust

May 7th, 2006, 03:28 AM

i would give a better chance for the rafale and the mig35 going by the past history,which the super hornet being the dark horse.

what past history?

the Rafale has served in one hot theatre and with a maximum of 8 aircraft on tour. (Op Herakles). They ran as companion packages with Shornets and USN organic tankers

the mig35 has been deployed where and when? what operational history exists?

The SHornet OTOH has literally thousands of operational hours tested against hundreds of platforms against multiple weapons loads.

The others don't even come remotely close on the basis of operational data.

I assume that you're not serious when you make comment about judging platforms based on appearance.

warfighting is about function over form - form over function is for car shows and catwalks. ;)

as a parallel, its akin to some of the kids on here who get immersed about "one to one" comparisons of "x" widget against "y" widget and are completely oblivious about logistics.

I'm not a devotee of the Shornet, but if we are going to use real world assessment, then its a proven and competent product that fulfills basically all of the validation and acceptance criteria for "usefulness".

aaaditya

May 7th, 2006, 03:33 AM

what past history?

the Rafale has served in one hot theatre and with a maximum of 8 aircraft on tour. (Op Herakles). They ran as companion packages with Shornets and USN organic tankers

the mig35 has been deployed where and when? what operational history exists?

The SHornet OTOH has literally thousands of operational hours tested against hundreds of platforms against multiple weapons loads.

The others don't even come remotely close on the basis of operational data.

I assume that you're not serious when you make comment about judging platforms based on appearance.

warfighting is about function over form - form over function is for car shows and catwalks. ;)

as a parallel, its akin to some of the kids on here who get immersed about "one to one" comparisons of "x" widget against "y" widget and are completely oblivious about logistics.

I'm not a devotee of the Shornet, but if we are going to use real world assessment, then its a proven and competent product that fulfills basically all of the validation and acceptance criteria for "usefulness".

i meant with respect to purchase of technology,india operates the mirage2000's and the russian mig29's.

it will be easier on basis of infrastructure,and also india is really imprssed with the performance of the mirage2000's(which was the original favourite).

aaaditya

May 7th, 2006, 03:38 AM

the rugged ,mean machine:

http://images.janes.com/aerospace/military/gallery/maks/images/mig_29ovt.jpg

mirage2000-5d-mk2 ,
the original favourites:

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/1200/2000black3ik.jpg

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7255/84374xk.jpg

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6841/m2k552mh.jpg

aaaditya

May 7th, 2006, 03:43 AM

the f-16 : still mean looking

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/9109/96f16falcon9gz.jpg

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/308/f1613jm.png

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4397/f1629rl.jpg

aaaditya

May 7th, 2006, 03:53 AM

well guys now its cockpit times,i want you guys to give me your opinion on which is the best and most efficient looking.

f18e/f super hornet:

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3636/f18cockpit6uu.jpg

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/663/fa18ef028ls.jpg

the f-16b-52

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/8615/f16i43nm.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/F-16_1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/F-16_2.jpg

my favourite,the rafale,by the way guys can someone tell me what is that ball like object on the right side of the cockpit ,near the head up display.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/rafale_7.jpg

the grippen:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/gripen1cockpit.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/gripen2cockpit.jpg

the ef2000 eurofighter:
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/EurofighterTyphoon_23.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/ajay_hk/EF2000.jpg

so guys which one do you think looks the most futuristic and user friendly..(my favourite is the rafale)

Scorpion82

May 7th, 2006, 05:31 AM

thanks very much for the information,however doesnt,the rafale have the spectra on the wingtips?

i dont see,the current posistioning of spectra,giving the aircraft all aspect jamming capability.

No Spectra has no components on the wingtips. The Eurofighter Typhoon's DASS uses the dedicated wingtip pods, also known as ECM/ESM pods.
The Spectra components are integrated into the canard roots, the boxy container at the top of the fin, the airliftintakes and also directly at the upper fuselage at the end of the wings.

aaaditya

May 9th, 2006, 10:20 PM

hey guys check out this highly interesting article on the cut throat rivalry in us defence market for a stake in india's mrca market.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1522915.cms

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI: In a military and arms sales career spanning three decades, Michael Devers seldom had India on his radar -- until 2005. A senior executive with Boeing's Integrated Defence Systems (IDS), the lesser-known arms division of the giant airplane maker, Devers traveled far and wide-- Korea, Japan, Middle-East, Australia -' hawking the latest American military wares to US' allies and friends. But rarely ever to India, which resolutely bought arms from the Moscow, Washington's Cold War rival, and Europe.

Then one day it began changing. Early last year, a top Boeing executive received a phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office. The US was going to finally clear the sale of F-16s (made by Boeing's rival-in-arms Lockheed Martin) to Pakistan. But the Secretary was keen to offer India more advanced F-16s and even newer Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornets in keeping with the strategic shift in the region. Was Boeing prepared for that?

"We were all stunned," another Boeing executive, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the exchanges, recalled. "This is a new generation combat aircraft that we have not sold to our closest allies. Outside the US Navy, no one has it. Yet here was the Secretary asking if we were ready to sell to India and also ready for joint production." Boeing's reply was swift: Sure thing.

In mid-March 2005, Rice traveled to New Delhi for what would only later be revealed as a path-breaking visit ' of the kind Henry Kissinger made to Beijing in 1970. Amid a raft of issues that would dramatically redefine US strategic interests in Asia, Rice not only sounded out Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the nuclear deal, but also suggested India not be too worried about US supply of F-16s to Pakistan because India could have its pick of US arms from here on.

The US was keen on a whole new security architecture in the region, a goal that was written into a ten-year military pact signed by the two defense establishments in June when Pranab Mukherjee visited Washington.

Two weeks after the Rice visit, Philip Zelikow, her policy advisor in the State Department, summed up the tectonic shift in US policy in the following words: "(The US) goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century. We understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement."

The statement was music to the ears for the folks at Boeing, and indeed, every other American arms maker such as Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. It was also the sound of cash registers ringing. Long out of bounds for America's notorious "military-industrial" complex for a variety of reasons, including sanctions, New Delhi had been fertile stomping ground for Russian and European arms dealers for years. Suddenly, Washington had thrown open the barn door and Americans could get into the scrimmage -- with, as some US firms like Boeing believe, far greater traction and advantage.

The reason for US relaxation of arms sales to India is clearly as much commercial as strategic. India's defense expenditure has climbed steadily over the past few years, current standing at $ 20 billion a year.

Although that's only a fraction of the $ 460 billion US spends and a quarter of China's $ 80 billion, it is expected to keep increasing as India looks to fulfill its potential role as a global power. In fact, India's defense expense is abysmally low when looked at in per capita terms (where Israel is by far the highest).

With each increase in India's defence budget, there has been a frisson of excitement in the world's arms bazaar as New Delhi has tried to upgrade its military.

No single item caused more animation in 2005 than the announcement that the Indian Air Force was looking for 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) to supplement its fleet, where the mainstay is the aging and disaster-stricken MiGs. And the ripple reached as far as St.Louis, Missouri, a once-great Midwestern city --home to Boeing's IDS and the center of its F/A-18 Super Hornet manufacturing facility -- that is a pale shadow of its former self. And it was to St Louis that the Indian media from Washington was press-ganged (we joked) last week for a surprising sales pitch.

Typically, every great city in the world, even pretenders to greatness, has a central historic monument. St.Louis' monument is the Jefferson National Memorial Expansion, a massive steel arch (603 feet high) which commemorates the start of the Lewis and Clark expedition that resulted in the westward expansion of the United States as envisaged by its founders.

For the longest time, Boeing's interests too have lain west, riding on its better known commercial airplane division headquartered outside Seattle in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing's revenues derive broadly half and half from its military and commercial divisions. One striking feature is that whenever there is a downswing in commercial aircraft sales, the military sales go up, as it did after 9/11, attesting to the theory that arms makers thrive during wars. Things have since improved dramatically on the commercial side too, and last year, Boeing trumped its rival Airbus in sales helped in small part by $ 7 billion order from Air India.

The story of Boeing's military sales to India though is less exciting, or non-existent. Although 90 per cent of its $ 30 billion arms sales last year came from domestic US orders, the remaining ten per cent revenues came mainly from Japan, South Korea, other such favored US allies. Meanwhile, St Louis itself is seen as city in decline (it is also the headquarters for Monsanto). Boeing's workforce here has declined from around 50,000 at its peak to 16,500. The city's biggest employer now is Barnes-Jewish Hospital with 27,000 personnel on its rolls.

When the Bush administration unlocked the door for military sales to India, the delight at Boeing IDS was as great as if the Cardinals, the city's pride in baseball, had won the World Series, even though there are many miles and years, twists and turns, to go before the final innings. Clearly, Boeing officials have surmised that India could be crucial to their bottom line and Missouri's economic health, a point emphasized by the alacrity with which the state's Senator Kit Bond dashed off to New Delhi soem weeks back and announced his support to the nuclear deal as a virtual quid pro quo -- to the military purchase.

After years in the stock market doghouse when the tech fever swept the world, Boeing stock had made a comeback (from $ 33 pre-9/11 to $ 84 in recent days). If they snagged IAF's 126-combat jets order, potentially one of the world's biggest arms deals worth around $ 7 billion, it could open up a cornucopia. And it would just be the start of a relationship with a country expected to buy tens of billions of arms over the next couple of decades.

In Boeing's eyes, its IDS has a whole array of products that should be of interest to India. The Super Hornets, the T-45 Goshawk trainer jet, giant transport jets such as the C-17, the rejuvenated P-8A weaponised maritime surveillance planes, Apache and Chinook helicopters, mid-air refueling tankers, even rockets and satellites is part of their inventory.

At a Boeing executives meeting soon after the Bush's strategic ambush of India last year, the question was raised as to who was best equipped to explore the Indian market. "I think I ducked under the table," Mike Devers chuckles at the recollection. "I had last been to India in the 1980s to sell some minor stuff to BEL and India those days was not an enjoyable experience. You are talking to a guy from Southern California who loves the beaches and golf."

Still, as one of its most experienced executives who had done the Asia beat, Devers was chosen for the India project. And so off he went, to the cauldron called New Delhi in June last year, a trip he has made every month since then. When he is not making presentations to Indian military planners about the virtues of Boeing arms, he is culling weather report headlines: Last summer, when the temperature hit a bracing 47 deg C, he sent home a headline which said "It's raining heat from hell.' Indeed, the heat is on Boeing to bag the India MRCA deal because it starts with as many handicaps as advantages, as we will see next.

Boeing's dogfight for the 126-combat jet India contract involves half a dozen arms makers across the world. But the first scrape begins at home in the US. When Condoleezza Rice, dubbed the 'warrior princess' in peacenik quarters, offered India both F/A-18 Super Hornets and advanced F-16s, she set off a minor spat between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

(The four other contenders for the deal are Dassault Aviation of France with the Mirage 2000-V, SAAB of Sweden with the JAS-39 Gripen, RAC of Russia with the MiG-29 MRCA and the British-German-Italian-Spanish consortium with the Eurofighter Typhoon. With New Delhi slated to issue its Request for Proposal (RFP) sometime in the next few weeks, you will find a lot of these nationals in New Delhi's swank hotels and bars.)

Boeing and Lockheed, like all American arms makers, share an unusual relationship. They are rivals in a sense, but they also collaborate on many projects, such as the one for the F-22 Raptor Stealth Fighter. The F/A-18 itself is a piecemeal jet â€“ the airframe is made by Boeing IDS and Northrup Grumman, the engine by General Electric and the radar by Hughes. Beneath the veneer of civility and cooperation, US arms companies are only too ready to shoot each other down â€“ without taking aim.

Boeing IDS officials will tell you why the F/A-18 Super Hornet is the best choice for India. It is a twin-engine MRCA, it is an F/A (for fighter/attack), and can be made for navy and air force). It has a long upside life, with orders from US Navy going into 2016 with ever newer technologies. F-16s? It's the end of the road for that fine plane. Even the USAF does not buy them any more, and once the order from the F-16-obsessed Pakistanis is fulfilled, Lockheed will close the assembly line in Texas.

Indian military planners hear all this with karmic Ã©lan, knowing that in New Delhi's scheme of things, a RFP today might mean acquisition a decade down the line, if at all. In any case, in the words of one senior IAF official familiar with the activity around MRCA acquisition, Boeing starts at bottom of the pile, for several reasons.

First among them is the famed unreliability of the American political system, as the Pakistanis found to their horror with the supply of F-16s. Then there are legacy issues: the IAF is long used to Russian systems and although its inventory has increasingly grown wider why add American to the mix now? And whatever happened to the indigenous LCA? Most of all can we really afford $ 7 billion for jets that cost around $ 53 billion apiece?

Boeing officials smile benignly at such questions, proffering answers that sound like they are selling large tractors rather than lethal jets that could raze towns and cities some day. They speak of joint manufacturing, using India's talent pool, and above all, interoperability with US systems and forces.

They speak of their investments in India, the $ 5 million a year for IISc, the $ 100 million maintenance and training hub in Nagpur. They use the word 'offset' â€“ euphemism for investment -- quite often. And of course, there is the subtle hint that they are pulling their weight in getting the US-India nuclear deal through.

In March this year, a group of Indian test pilots was visiting US as part of the increasingly frequent military exchanges between the two countries. Although a visit to Boeing IDS was not on their itinerary, Boeing executives managed to get them to spend a day at St. Louis, where they were given a flight test review of the F/A-18 E/F and a tour of the production facility, besides a briefings on the P-8A. Indian pilots were also walked through the T-45, on which they will begin training on in Pensacola, Florida starting June this year. "The transparency was amazing considering they are non-starters going into this," an airman from the group told TNN.

mukunda

May 10th, 2006, 04:33 AM

what past history?

the Rafale has served in one hot theatre and with a maximum of 8 aircraft on tour. (Op Herakles). They ran as companion packages with Shornets and USN organic tankers

the mig35 has been deployed where and when? what operational history exists?

The SHornet OTOH has literally thousands of operational hours tested against hundreds of platforms against multiple weapons loads.

The others don't even come remotely close on the basis of operational data.

I assume that you're not serious when you make comment about judging platforms based on appearance.

warfighting is about function over form - form over function is for car shows and catwalks. ;)

as a parallel, its akin to some of the kids on here who get immersed about "one to one" comparisons of "x" widget against "y" widget and are completely oblivious about logistics.

I'm not a devotee of the Shornet, but if we are going to use real world assessment, then its a proven and competent product that fulfills basically all of the validation and acceptance criteria for "usefulness".
hi gary,
One hypothetical question? It is possible to fit in all the avionics of Rafale into Mirage 2000-5? How capable then the mirage will be? Is there any way I can PM you.

gf0012-aust

May 10th, 2006, 06:07 AM

One hypothetical question? It is possible to fit in all the avionics of Rafale into Mirage 2000-5?

I'd say not as there are multiple issues to contend with:

autonomy
harnessing
re-certification
frame/structural issues
engineering issues
relevancy issues
power issues
How capable then the mirage will be?

an expensive compromise
an old platform trying to be a new platform
completely cost ineffective.Occum is an FTE, maybe he will give some professional advice if you ask nicely ;)

ssatpathy

December 30th, 2006, 03:08 AM

While I agree that the F-16 and F-18s have proven their effctiveness over time , it is also true that they are aging platforms whose time has come and gone.
Further, india cannot make the strategic mistake of acquiring miltiray hardware from the U.S for obvious reasons. We will be forever dependent on Boeing or LM for costly spares because they would not have economies of scale as these platforms are retired from service by the USAF and other airforces around the world.
Lastly, India needs a 5th generation or at least a 4.5 generation aircraft that is custom built to service the IAF's requirements. Anything else would be akin to trying to fit a square pug into a circular hole. This is precisely the advantage that India can harness partnering with Mikoyan to develop a platform from scratch. There's potentially $10 Billion at stake and India needs to ensure that this money well spent. It can use the large amount at stake to leverage an exclusivity clause in the contract which could be a strategically deft move. At a later time India can choose to jointly market and sell the aircraft to other nations. Further, India will have the flexibility to dressup the Mikoyan platform with Israeli & French avionics as has been the case with the MKIs. This looka like a no-brainer to me no matter how you look at it.

himeed

December 30th, 2006, 04:50 AM

aaaditya

December 30th, 2006, 05:03 AM

hey ,any idea why India is not interested in the Eurofighter Typhoon, its supposed to be the second best aircraft after the F-22..according to one comparison it said that 4.5 SU-35=1 Eurofighter Typhoon(source wikipedia), then why doesnt india want these aircrafts if they are available at the same cost as F-18 or Rafale

ef2000 is still participating in the indian mrca competition ,however its chances of winning are slim since it is too expensive compared to its competitors.

aaaditya

December 30th, 2006, 05:08 AM

hey guys ,check out this link and article (slightly dated) about sweden's efforts to promote its gripen fighters.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/19056.html

Unlike the Americans and the Russians, who’ve mounted a blitzkrieg pitch of their fighters for New Delhi’s upcoming contract for 126 new jets, its largest ever, Sweden’s contender has remained well behind the scenes over the last two years. But now, the country’s JAS-39 Gripen, the least visible of the six contenders, will break the silence to roar over Bangalore sky at the Aero-India 2007 Defence fair next February.

The Gripen contends with rivals that have made a far more visible hardsell, both through visits of top executives and publicity, for what is one of the most lucrative fighter deals in the world in the last 20 years potentially worth $ 7 billion. These include the American F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Russian MiG-35, a European consortium’s Typhoon and France’s Rafale. The American and Russian fighters will compete with the Russian and American fighters for airspace over Yelahanka in February.

In service with the Swedish and Czech air forces and on order for Hungary and South Africa, the Gripen is a light fighter with dimensions similar to the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and even runs on the same GE404 jet engine. Pitched initially as a rival to the French Mirage-2000, which has since withdrawn from the competition, the Gripen’s chances have receded in part due to the widening of the IAF’s qualitative requirements to accommodate larger and heavier aircraft like the twin-engined MiG-35, F/A-18, Typhoon and Rafale.
Top sources in the IAF indicate that among other parameters, it had wanted to purchase fighters in the 6-8 tons “empty weight” category — a slot that the Gripen shares with the F-16 and Mirage. All the others in the sweepstakes weigh nine tons or more, the heaviest being the F/A-18 at close to 14 tons. Fighter pilots are also largely of the opinion that active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars — which the Gripen is being upgraded with, but is operational on some of its rivals in the competition — will be a key decider, considering the legacy leap such technology provides to combat pilots over mechanically scanned radars. Either way, with the requests for proposal (RFP) for the 126 fighters shortly to be sent out to the six firms, Gripen will now open an India office.

himeed

December 31st, 2006, 04:56 AM

ajay_ijn

December 31st, 2006, 07:59 AM

aaaditya

December 31st, 2006, 06:45 PM

Pulling out Mig-35 is completely wrong. There was a news that India even rejected to join next gen Fighter project because it was in advanced stage.

And now reports of proposal being again made in jan 2007 for join development.
whats happening really out there is a mystery.

also indian were not interested in the twin design pakfa project of the sukhoi design beureau,they wanted something lighter and cheaper,thats why they rejected the pakfa design ,but invited mig to display their design proposals,both mig and sukhoi have recently briefed indian airforce officials and the defence minister on their designs.

Ucha Sar

January 1st, 2007, 02:33 AM

also indian were not interested in the twin design pakfa project of the sukhoi design beureau,they wanted something lighter and cheaper,thats why they rejected the pakfa design ,but invited mig to display their design proposals,both mig and sukhoi have recently briefed indian airforce officials and the defence minister on their designs.

Yes, this is correct. The Sukhoi team's Pakfa project is in an advanced stage of design and the Indian defense ministry wants to be involved from the get go. With the cost per unit aircraft being an overriding concern, the MoD's argument is that the project could leverage favorable labor cost arbitrages ( lower salaries for engineers at DRDO and ISRO) to reduce the overall cost of development which could translate to slightly lower cost per unit. Further, this would give our aeronautical and aerospace engineers time to shadow their Russian counterparts and go through the entire life-cycle starting with conceptualization & design, manufacturing , assembly and maintenance - a good idea if you ask me. The IAF's needs are unique and the need of the hour is to get machines that serve their needs best. What can be better than getting something custom built to your requirement. This is precisely why I think the I-2000 project would be just awesome !

himeed

January 2nd, 2007, 12:25 PM

Abhimanyu

January 2nd, 2007, 05:48 PM

MIG I-2000 is a distance away..for now i seriously dont understand why India does not go for the Eurofighter..it may be expensive..but its new technology and bound to be better than pother aircraft which are 20th century technologies being modified and upgraded..further more there was speculation that India might up its MCRA deal to 200 aircraft..if they can afford 200 MIG-29/F-16 im very sure that they can affford 126 Eurofighter typhoons...and remember in a war with Pakistan,there is a chance that Pakistan will get Eurofighter from Saudi Arabia

Contrary to what most folks on this forum believe - India fortunately does not suffer from the "jealous neighbor" syndrome ! We don't need Eurofighters just because Pakistan has them ( frankly I don't think they can cough up the dough). We just need a great aircraft that meets the IAFs geostrategic needs -
India needs to slowly focus on building an airforce that measures up with its ambitions of becoming a global powerhouse , not just a regional one !

With nig dollars at stake, we need to also ensure that we are able to use this opportunity to bolster the design capabilities of the aeronautical/aerospace industry in India. This leads me to believe that co-development would be the best approach.

aaaditya

January 5th, 2007, 03:12 AM

hey guys,check out this link and article,it gives some idea to what offsets russians are hoping to provide for the indian 126 aircraft mrca deal.

here is the link and article:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_story.jsp?id=news/RUS01027.xml

The release of requests for proposals for India's multirole fighter program has been delayed by protests from Russian and U.S. contractors over India's offset policy.
India's policy requires foreign defense manufacturers with contracts of more than $70 million to reinvest 30% of the total in components and services from India. Russian and U.S. contractors fear the policy, if it stands, could benefit European rivals seeking to land the 126-aircraft deal.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin want to "kick start" an industrial base in India through banking credits extended in advance of contracts (AW&ST Oct. 2, 2006, p. 67). The Russians want to de-link licenses for service divisions of manufacturing companies under terms of the Defense Procurement Act of 2006. The Russians say separate licenses will encourage the development of small repair and maintenance operations, making it easier for them to sell to Malaysia and Indonesia, India's neighbors.
The Russian view is gaining traction within the government. A clause in the procurement act making it mandatory for service companies to hold manufacturing licenses is likely to be pulled, according to a Defense Ministry official.
In a letter to the ministry obtained by Aviation Week & Space Technology, the eight partners of Rosoboronservice India are calling for a broader definition of "service" to include installation of new or replacement systems, testing, training and similar activities.
"The service sector is largely dominated by small and medium enterprises," says Rosoboronservice India Managing Director Cdr. (ret.) V.G. Jayaprakasan. He says industrial licenses are too expensive for them. The smaller businesses are needed because large manufacturers do not generally provide services, finding them a distraction from their core business.
Rosoboronservice India includes one Indian and eight Russian contractors. The company provides services and spares for Russian-designed surface ships, submarines, missile systems and aircraft of the Indian navy, including the Kamov Ka-31 and Ilyushin Il-38. It has signed agreements to support Kamov and other Russian helicopters and various naval vessels. It wants to be a one-stop shop for Russian aircraft in the Indian air force.
"Transfer of technology is not going to happen easily," says Jayaprakasan. "A joint venture in production of equipment is of no interest to any supplier" because the contract awards are too small, even for Indian investors. Another issue is capping foreign investments at 26%. If they can be licensed at a lower fee as a service provider, then smaller companies should prosper, he says.

aaaditya

January 10th, 2007, 08:57 PM

hey guys ,just check out these images of the mig35 with the zhuk-mae active electronically scanned array,just check out the build quality.

http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/IMG_5619_sm.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/977/img5614smkp9.jpg

aaaditya

January 10th, 2007, 08:59 PM

and here are more including,images of it's cockpit,

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/8499/img5619smeo4.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1429/img5617smtc7.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6030/img5618smtu3.jpg

aaaditya

January 11th, 2007, 03:27 AM

hey guys,the sale of the russian mig35 to the indian airforce would be the hot topic of discussion during russian president vladmir putin's visit to india,i just hope that putin's personal intervention would not swing the decision in mig's favour and that the competition would be free and fair.

here check out this link and article:

http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=11&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=19424

Russia will contest for the Indian tender for the acquisition of 126 fighters for the Indian Air Force by offering next-generation MiG jets, a top defence official here said.

"India will soon announce a tender for a large batch of light fighters. Russia and the MiG Corporation will proactively participate in the tender," Russia's deputy prime minister and defence minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted as saying by state-run Radio Mayak.

In the Indian tender, Russia's MiG-35 will compete with US, Swedish and French jet fighters for a $4 billion deal.

Ivanov, who is also chairman of the recently set-up United Aircraft Corporation as a common umbrella for the Russian aviation industry, said the MiG Corporation would offer India its MiG-35 fighters.

The MiG-35, the next generation version of MiG-29M OVT with thrust vectoring engines is a highly manoeuvrable air superiority fighter.

Ivanov said that he would discuss the issue during his New Delhi visit later this month for the annual session of
Indo-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation headed by the defence ministers of the two countries.

aaaditya

January 11th, 2007, 03:30 AM

hey guys,check out this link and article,it gives some insight into what we can expect from the swedish pavilion at the aeroindia 2007.

here is the link and article:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=8018

With the Request For Proposal (RFP) pending on the Indian Air Force’s 126 Multi Role Combat Aircraft contract, Gripen International is eyeing critical visibility at the upcoming Aero India in Bangalore.
With the Request For Proposal (RFP) pending on the Indian Air Force’s 126 Multi Role Combat Aircraft contract, Gripen International — one of the bidders in the race — is eyeing critical visibility at the upcoming Aero India (February 7-11) in Bangalore. Talking to Deccan Herad on Wednesday, Tony Ogilvy, Vice President (Sales and Marketing) — Gripen International said the show was extremely crucial in the company’s plans for India.

“We’ve pooled all our resources into the event. A big pavilion has been shipped out and for the first time in Asia, three fighter aircraft from the Swedish Air Force will be on display. Aero India will reflect Gripen’s commitment to India and show our real intent,” Mr Ogilvy said. The simulated cockpit for fighter pilots — that will be part of the Gripen pavilion at Aero India — will showcase its key features including top-of-the-line visual display and air-to-air datalinking.

Bangalore calling

Gripen, the fighters export and marketing wing of Swedish aerospace major Saab, is in the MRCA race with its JAS 39 fighter. The contract, the RFP for which is expected to be issued soon, is worth around Rs 30,000 crore. Mr Ogilvy — who is also Gripen India’s Campaign Director — said that in a market which has the F-16s, MiG-21s and the Mirages, Gripen’s had been a low-profile presence.

He, however, said the idea was to push for the change through a series of initiatives, one of them being the launch of the Bangalore operations, complete with a core team of three to four senior design and technological experts.

“Bangalore is the centre of the Indian aerospace industry and Aero India will be the ideal platform to display Gripen aircraft for the first time to the IAF, as well as the public,” he said.

Mr Ogilvy said Gripen JAS 39 offered a low-maintenance model with an assured life of 40 years. He said IAF had wanted fighters in the race to be upgraded to Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars and Gripen would — on acceptance of RFP — include the radars in the offer. On IAF’s demand for heavier, twin-engined fighters, Mr Ogilvy said he was not aware of such preferences. “We are presenting ourselves in the six to eight tonne category and single-engine fighters are the norm these days.”

aaaditya

January 13th, 2007, 01:31 PM

hey guys,check this out,this article contains some valuable information including specifications related to the russian mig29m2 a derivative of which is on offer to the indian airforce for its 125 aircraft mrca order.

here is the link:

http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mig29mm2specsam4.jpg

aaaditya

January 13th, 2007, 01:35 PM

hey guys,check out this link ,it contains a comparison between the basic mig29 and the mig35's on offer to the indian airforce for its 125 aircraft mrca deal.

here is the link:

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pic1px2.jpg

aaaditya

January 13th, 2007, 01:38 PM

hey,guys,check out this link,it contains some information and the comparison between the rd-33series2 engines powering the mig29 aircrafts and the rd-33mk engines powering the newer mig35 aircrafts on offer to the indian airforce for its 125 aircrafts mrca deal.

here is the link:

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pic3cw0.jpg

aaaditya

January 13th, 2007, 01:41 PM

hey guys,check out this link ,it contains a comparison between the n019 radars used on the mig29's and the zhuk-a radars proposed for use on the mig35 jets which have been offered to the indian airforce for its 125 combat aircraft nrca deal.

here is the link:

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pic4ag2.jpg